Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a contribution on this important legislation on behalf of the Labour Party. Like a number of Deputies present, we have pointed out the deficiencies and defects in the Bill, or at least those which may arise consequential to its implementation.

We do so in deference and with respect to the large number of groups and individuals whom we have met and who have contacted us as a party directly. Some of their views are significant and need to be addressed. We are fully cognisant of and aware of them and conversant with the background and genesis of the Bill and why it has arisen, so I will not rehash that. I regret that we are in this difficult situation. I do not think that we would be in such a situation if the opportunities available to the Minister had been taken up by him and officials in the past two years. There have been more than two years to reflect on this issue. The Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, of which I am a member along with a number of colleagues here, has done much positive work on this. We appreciate that this is an all-island situation which has to be addressed. We are not blind to the realities of it. I acknowledge that the Minister has had meetings with various people from the industry and some progress has been made to address some of the concerns of the fish-producing organisations, but there are other individuals involved too. Since April or May 2017, as my colleague, Senator Nash, said, there has been radio silence. That is a lost opportunity from the past two years. The time could have been used constructively to engage with parliamentarians, fish-producing groups, individuals and organisations.

People are concerned about this. I have spoken to Mr. Kelly, his brother, and other people who are involved. I spoke to Mr. Kelly and Mr. Barlow two years and two months ago. We had a very detailed conversation. One cannot but admire their pluck and courage to take on the State. At any opportunity I get as a barrister, I am delighted to take on the State because I believe in fighting for the small people. I have often gone in and am prepared to do it pro bonoif I have to. With the amount of financial resources that they invested in the Supreme Court, one cannot but laud their bravery and fortitude. That is why we are here today. It is important that the courts look at those things.

The voisinageagreement and London agreement are there, but as other people have indicated, people are rightly concerned about the impact of Brexit, which has far-reaching tentacles, as we know, and the ability of the British Government to honour its side of any agreement and reciprocal arrangements. Brexit represents a significant challenge to the fishing industry, like so many other industries in this country. It is clear that people feel aggrieved that, while we have many positive benefits from the EU, this area has suffered greatly. The Supreme Court has made a determination on this significant national resource-based industry in respect of exploitation of our rich fishing grounds and our quota share. I know there been pluses and win-wins in other areas but fishermen and fisherwomen feel shortchanged, especially small fishermen and women who do not have large multi-million euro boats or trawlers available to them. Their capacity to earn a livelihood is diminishing daily and the threat of total extinction of their way of live and ability to earn a living is moving into view.

We must fight to safeguard Irish interests relating to our fishing grounds and quota share, and the naked exploitation of our resources. While I am an inlander, more used to lakes, rivers and canals than the sea, I have listened to the anguish and plight of the mussel sea fishermen and others and how they feel. I appreciate that this is another argument which will arise in the second part of the judgment. A High Court case will be taken in this regard. It is a matter of gravest concern for these people, who try to eke out a living in difficult and challenging circumstances. It is in this context that my colleagues, Senators Ged Nash and Kevin Humphreys, raised it. I have never seen so many people participate, even at our own parliamentary party meeting. Deputy Howlin had some correspondence from people in Wexford on this relating to sea mussel exploitation. Senator Nash received correspondence relating to Louth. Councillor Martin Farren from Donegal was in constant contact with me about this. Deputy Brendan Ryan raised Swords, Skerries and so on. The context has certainly enlightened people in a big way.

I know the Minister gave some concessions on the size and length of the boat, with regard to the 18 m boats within six nautical miles. We are all aware of the statements which emanated from Secretary of State Gove on behalf of the British Government that the British Government intends to take back control of all of the waters governed by the UK jurisdiction. Are we to assume that, with the correspondence going back and forth from the British Government, there will be a level playing pitch? It can hardly get the time of day right over there now, never mind talking about this type of thing. That is a genuine fear and we have to face up to that and face the realities. It was consistent in many ways that the British would like to see the spirit and letter of the previous voisinageagreement provided for, respected and honoured. How can we accept the bona fides of some of those expressions that the voisinagemay be honoured by both sides and that there would be reciprocity in the absence of any commitment by the British Government to legislate to give effect to that? That has to be addressed. Will legislation be forthcoming from the British Government to give effect to the voisinageagreement and the reciprocal argument? If we were living in normal times, with letters of commitment flowing back and forth, even back when iar-Thaoiseach Lemass and Terence O'Neill were there, that was grand and they were honoured.

We are living in very uncertain times. Normal business has been suspended in the UK. Only an hour ago, they were talking about maybe having a third meaningful vote. They do not know whether they will have a third meaningful vote. This issue arrived back on the agenda as a result of recent events in Dundalk Bay. It is a sensitive time and issues are magnified in the context of Brexit and the delicate North-South and east-west relationships, which we all appreciate, as other colleagues have said. This has nothing to do with Brexit but everything to do with our rights, as a sovereign parliament, to make laws to govern our part. We have to take into account the interests of the people and communities that we represent. They tell us that they are deeply concerned. That is a point we have to make clearly in this regard.

The reality is that we have no idea what the post-Brexit fisheries or fishing relationship will be. I acknowledge that the Minister is doing his best. People are saying that we should stall the horses. There are mediation proposals where everybody would get an opportunity to mediate and see what would satisfy the arrangements that we are trying to make on an all-island basis. If we were to legislate, people are concerned that access would only be provided for the Irish inshore for those vessels that are owned, managed and operated by those who reside in Northern Ireland and have their businesses in Northern Ireland. I met the Minister and his officials and he indicated that that is not possible because that may bring other ramifications and consequences, as I understand it. I remember discussing a Dutch multinational corporation vessel with a Northern Ireland flag as a convenience, which in effect allowed UK vessels to fish in the Irish inshore. There is a significant impact on available resources from that. That letter from those people in Wexford was a salutary lesson on the impact that it was. Those people were saying that they are going off the pitch altogether. There will be none of them left and that will have an impact on employment.

I do not live on the coast but I see many here who do, such as Deputy Ferris. They probably made their living in the past from fishing. As the Labour Party's spokesperson for community and rural development, I know how hard it is to get three jobs in an area. I am sure there are ten, 12 or 15 jobs in some of those areas. I am sure they have reared families on that. That is the concern that we have. We know that it has to be looked at on an all-island basis to ensure that everything works out, but the issue is that vessels registered all over the place can come in and engage in exploitation. We have to tread carefully. It is a pity that we did not get an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny, because then we can get under the bonnet of legislation, so to speak, and tease it out. We all want to see a positive North-South relationship, which is very important. Our responsibility as a sovereign Parliament in the Republic of Ireland is to legislate in the interests of those trying to make out those limits. We have to nurture good relations. I have been inundated. The Irish Farmers' Association is a powerful lobbying group although I do not kowtow to it, thanks be to God, even it does not do as much. In 27 years, this is the issue on which I have seen the most representations. I was taken by that with regard to what we can do to advance matters. It is a difficult and delicate situation. I know that the Minister has set it out and I will not rehash that.

The Labour Party knows there is an objective to be achieved. The question is how to achieve it and the impact and consequences of the legislative basis that we are putting in to underpin the previous agreement. People tell me that under the reciprocity agreement, very few from the Republic go into the Northern Ireland waters. Our coast represents 84% of the total. Equality is an important issue too.

See this speech in context